Generally, I agree. The PCAOB should be up-to-date in its overview actions – shareholders deserve the best. Events simply move faster than regulatory entities can adjust. But also interesting – the SEC criticizing the PCAOB? Looking at itself, is the SEC really in a position to criticize?

Question – if it is determined after-the-fact that an audit firm lacks independence, is the audit by that firm of any value? In other words, can the audit still be relied upon? One of the keystones of audit is that the auditing firm is independent of the entity that it is auditing. Perhaps it can still be determined that the issue or area causing the lack of independence did not materially impact the audit and the audit opinion? But this is problematic.

No surprise here. Inactive and lack of diligent long-term planning. This issue has been around for 40-50 years. A serious issue for old, middle age and young alike.

If you are young, why do you want to pay 13-14% (half from you and half from your employer) into this program when there is no reasonable certainty that it will be around for you when you retire, and if it is around there is no reasonable certainty about what the benefits will be.

If you are near or at retirement and you paid into this program for 40-50 years you are probably safe, if you don’t live for another 20 years.

If you are in the middle, not near retirement, and have been forced to pay into this program for 25-35 years, good luck to you.

How would you rate the Social Security program risk management? See my prior blog post about the NIST cybersecurity risk management framework, Click for Post . I would rate Social Security risk management as Tier 1 – Tier 2.

You may have been following the efforts to bring European and U.S. accounting standards into conformity, and how difficulty that has been. I would evaluate the chance of bringing the various different governance and risk management codes into conformity as zero. And as the European regulatory agencies appear to be getting more active and demanding both with the code provisions and enforcement, we might expect European developments in these areas to become more center stage. Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco / California)

I am following up on a post by a LinkedIn group member about a new regulatory initiative by the U.K. Charity Commission on trustee standard of care. You can click on the following link to access the article: www.gov.uk

The following are my initial comments about the post and the regulatory proposal.

Thank you Jane. I clicked on the materials. As they are rather long for a morning before work read, I’ll have to get back to them in detail. Preliminarily it appears to pretty much follow what in the U.S. would be the business judgment rule.

The very real distinction is whether a regulatory agency will really enforce the requirements. And with charities there are so many different types and missions, and people of tremendously different backgrounds who serve on the boards.

I have served on two nonprofit boards and as an audit committee chair – on one of the boards all members were pretty sophisticated, on the other board perhaps less than half would fit that criteria. But on both boards they all supported the mission, did not have conflicts, and tried to make correct and diligent decisions within their abilities.

Should some of the board members on the second board not be allowed to serve as board members? Tough call. Depending on the final outcome of the regulations, they could have a chilling or at least limiting effect on who can or wants to serve on a charity board. The U.K. initiative will be very interesting to watch.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The next Ebola or the next SARS. Maybe even the next HIV. Even before the Ebola epidemic in West Africa is brought under control, public health officials are girding for the next health disaster.